Why would background checks require gun registration?

[rbernie]

If you were selling to a stranger and you could call in a background check without submitting any details on the firearm, would you? I might just want the added protection of being able to say I did my due diligence.

'Tis a sad thing when folk feel compelled to act as unpaid agents of the Government to avoid potential future negative contact with the Government.

 

[itsa pain]

We need to put aside the belief that our opponents' main interest in universal background checks is to prevent prohibited persons from getting guns. Our opponents want universal background checks so that all firearms transactions are documented by records that are readily accessible by the government.

Our opponents have repeatedly demonstrated their true focus on universal transaction records.

Last year, Senator Coburn offered a proposal to bring Republican support for a recordless UBC law ... and Senator Shumer flatly rejected it, specifically because it did not produce transaction records that would be under government control.

Background check requirements at a dealer can be met either through a call to NICS or, in many states, by showing a concealed carry permit. Last year's UBC bills called for all private transactions to go through FFLs, not to check a person's background -that could be done by seeing a person's concealed carry permit- but to ensure the production and retention of transaction records.

If all firearms transactions are ever recorded, it would be a trivial step to require the currently-distributed records to be gathered in a central registry.

Of course our opponents want background checks so as to hinder a regular guy from getting a gun and creating a data base. The sad part is many gun owners act like demented BATF agents when they sell a gun. Maybe one in a million gun buyers maybe should not have a gun so the other 99.9% have to suffer and it is the 99% they are after. Gun laws are not to stop crime. Crime is a lucrative business

 

[Old Fuff]

Two points and a comment:

A driver's license is often used for identification, because it has the buyer's photograph on it. You have to provide the dealer with some form of photo I.D., but it doesn't have to be a driver's license.

Anyone who is truly concerned about making a private sale to a stranger (or anyone else) has an option of placing in on consignment with an FFL.

In Arizona private sales go on all of the time, and while not required by law most sellers make 2 copies of a bill-of-sale, one for themselves and one for the buyer - who may or may not be a stranger. The bill-of-sale includes the buyer's driver's license number, which the seller examines to see if the picture matches the individual. The seller will do the same if the buyer requests it.

All this, without another law.

 

[Warp]

Carding somebody for alcohol has absolutely nothing to do with who the person is or what their background is or calling to a government agency.

All it does is verify how old they are.

Carding for alcohol sales is so very different from "universal background checks" for firearms (as it has been proposed) I find it laughably stupid that the two are being compared.

 

[MErl]

Down the lines of carding for booze. Since you can only do a private sale to residents of the same state it would probably be a good idea to card people for that as well. Booze it to verify age, guns it is to verify residence.

 

[Deanimator]

They could enforce it exactly the same way they enforce liquor carding laws. Periodic stings with undercover officers trying to buy to see if sellers comply. It doesn't prevent 100% of crime (nothing does), but it's not true that you need a registry to have some sort of enforcement mechanism. There are other ways.

They need registration in order for it to be in ANY way effective.

Without registration it's nothing but a joke, and they KNOW it.

Godwin's Law? I'm talking about getting some things we really want (CHL state-to-state reciprocity, or a change of may-issue statutes to shall-issue) in exchange for non-registry UBCs, which are minimally effective but don't hurt us. I'm not talking about genocide here. Nazi analogies aren't needed.

I once told Godwin himself what I thought of his "law". It's the rhetorical crutch that the historically illiterate use to avoid learning the lessons of history from which the educated benefit.

I'm talking about making "deals" with people who are as UTTERLY untrustworthy, and whose word is of every BIT as little value as Hitler's and Ribbontrop's. I'm not getting rolled by pathologically lying sociopaths whom I KNOW to be pathologically lying sociopaths. Trusting the other side to keep its word is EVERY bit as foolish as believing that the ONLY honest Nigerian "prince" is offering only YOU a chance at free millions.

NO, I REFUSE.

 

[Apachedriver]

And anyway, what would be the point of adding a UBC violation to their already illegal possession of firearms?

That right there is on point. Every single law-abiding gun owner in the US, and its territories, could turn in their firearms in the blink of an eye and it wouldn't have the slightest of positive effects on lowering the crime rate nor making daily life safer for any one of us.

There are thousands upon thousands of illegal gun owners in this country and not a single one of them would be negatively affected by a UBC, or registration, or any other gun control measure. And if they lost the gun in hand, they can get plenty more from other sources without turning to steal them from law-abiding citizens here.

All we'd end up with are law-abiding people set up to be sheared at will by both government and criminals.

Too bad there aren't any serfs around to tell you how great life is when cared for by their liege.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

UBCs don't necessarily require registration. One doesn't flow from the other. And UBCs without registration, while they certainly wouldn't be a silver bullet against gun crime (they probably wouldn't have any effect), wouldn't really hurt.

As long as our firearms laws rely on the infrastructure supplied by the 1968 Gun Control Act, UBCs require registration.

As far as the prospect for some new system, Sen. Tom Coburn actually agreed to work with Senators Schumer, Manchin and Kirk to develop universal background checks despite much opposition from the RKBA community. He came up with a flawed; but innovative system that would have provided UBCs for EVERY firearms sale without registration and would have arguably made the law easier to follow.

The result? He got kicked out of the coalition and Pat Toomey took his place. His proposed bill got tabled by Sen. Reid and never even got a vote on it as a bill or amendment - this despite the Dems supposed love of UBCs.

Instead we got Schumer-Toomey-Manchin which said that CHLs do not need to be background checked (because they already have been) but that every transfer between CHLs still had to go through an FFL and have paperwork done. If that doesn't give you a clear view of what the problem is, I don't know what will.

 

[torqem]

Big Bro has no right whatsover banning any arms or any person from having arms. That, if it's done at all, should be reserved to the state, since the state gov't is many times more responsible to the citizenry. Then if you don't like a given state's laws, you simply take your tax money elsewhere.

 

[Deanimator]

If that doesn't give you a clear view of what the problem is, I don't know what will.

The REAL problem is the utter gullibility of some "gun owners" (if in fact they really are). They simply seem uncontrollably compelled to get rolled by the other side, over, and over, and over. Of course some of them are in on the con. <cough - AHSA - cough>

 

[rbernie]

As long as our firearms laws rely on the infrastructure supplied by the 1968 Gun Control Act, UBCs require registration

I think that the OP is asking for an outline or description of the scenario whereby a UBC without registration is walked into registration.

 

[Deanimator]

"I think that the OP is asking for an outline or description of the scenario whereby a UBC without registration is walked into registration."
When it INEVITABLY fails, as it MUST without registration, they call for registration.

The presumption that the other side is in ANY way trustworthy is simply ludicrous.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Instead we got Schumer-Toomey-Manchin which said that CHLs do not need to be background checked (because they already have been) but that every transfer between CHLs still had to go through an FFL and have paperwork done. If that doesn't give you a clear view of what the problem is, I don't know what will.

So the firearm buyer/seller would still be logged by the FFL. That makes no sense because the UBC is supposed to prevent felons from buying firearms. If the transaction is between two CHL holders how could either one be a felon? So all that tells me is the UBC isn't about keeping firearms away from felons, it's about keeping track of guns and who owns them or a registry.

 

[Midwest]

I think that the OP is asking for an outline or description of the scenario whereby a UBC without registration is walked into registration.

If there is a case that comes up where someone will be accused of someone of acquiring a firearm without a UBC. The defendant can say that they acquired it before UBC. Since the defendant is having a difficult time proving their innocence, a politician has an idea...'to solve the problem' so it doesn't happen again. Proof of ownership 'paperwork'.

Then the politician will talk about the UBC "loophole" (no I am not joking) and claim that people are bypassing UBC by using a 'prior ownership' excuse.

Then some politician from NY and or CA will come up with legislation ( to close the UBC loophole) that will "license" the gun. The firearms will now have it's own papers whenever it goes through a UBC. From that point on all firearms going through the UBC will have to 'have papers'.

Then there will be legislation declaring an amnesty period in getting 'un-papered firearms' papered. After some time any firearm that doesn't have 'paper' will be declared contraband. And any 'un-papered' firearm could not be run through the UBC after that date. You know, just like DiFi proposed. Putting an entire class of rifles under the NFA with no chance of transfer after the owner dies.

 

[Warp]

If there is a case that comes up where someone will be accused of someone of acquiring a firearm without a UBC. The defendant can say that they acquired it before UBC.

Except for all firearms manufactured after the theoretical UBC law passed, in which case everything manufactured after that date is de-facto registered. And that's without ANYTHING extra, just the UBC and nothing more. So, that's the best case scenario under UBC...all new firearms are registered.

 

[Apachedriver]

Scary stuff.

 

[Old Fuff]

The deep root of the problem gun control advocates have is that prior to 1968 there were no controls of any significance on gun sales and other transfers. So as a practical matter most of these guns can't be traced by the BATF&E. If they tried to confiscate any particular class of guns (or for that matter all of them) using currently available records they would fall short because between 1900 and 1968 literally hundreds of thousands of firearms were produced, and probably at least 50 to 75 percent of them are still around and fully functional.

Also add the boatloads of guns that came to our shores when returning GI's brought them back after both world wars, or they were imported or re-imported as military surplus and dealers sold them at attractive prices with little or no paperwork.

So the Grand Plan can't go forward until some way is found to get this hardware into the database.

And it's not too hard to figure out how they think they can do it.

But it’s unfortunate that some folks who claim to be in our ranks simply can’t pull their heads up out of the sand. :banghead:

 

[Midwest]

Except for all firearms manufactured after the theoretical UBC law passed, in which case everything manufactured after that date is de-facto registered. And that's without ANYTHING extra, just the UBC and nothing more. So, that's the best case scenario under UBC...all new firearms are registered.

Correct and after all new firearms have to go through the UBC and 'papered' (registered) then they will bring up the 'UBC loophole' (of firearms that have not gone through the UBC before the law took effect) and declare an amnesty period to get all those firearms papered.

And after the amnesty period, if a firearm has not been 'papered'. It can no longer be used, sold or given away and is contraband. (Think NFA)

So this sounds like a far fetched plan and it will never happen? I have been reading out their playbook of what they proposed or have done in the past.

There has been precedent for this, they put the Street Sweeper shotgun under the NFA in 1994 and declared an amnesty until May 2001. Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen declared it a destructive device.


"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armsel_Striker

The Striker and Streetsweeper are difficult to procure in the United States of America as they were declared as destructive devices under the National Firearms Act with no sporting purpose by Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen in 1994 and their transfer and ownership is regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives."

http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2001-1.html

" ATF has contacted all purchasers
of record of the shotguns to advise them of the classification of the
weapons as destructive devices and that the weapons must be registered.
ATF has registered approximately 8,200 of these weapons to date.

Held, the
registration period for the USAS-12, Striker-12, and Streetsweeper shotguns
will close on May 1, 2001. No further registrations will be accepted after
that date. Persons in possession of unregistered NFA firearms are subject
to all applicable penalties under 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53."


Scary stuff indeed